RE: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re: morality issues

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well said Jon.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jon Nevett
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 11:56 PM
To: soac-mapo
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re:
morality issues

 

I support the model of cross-community discussion groups, such as this
CWG.  In certain circumstances, they are a very good idea.  I think that
it worked very well in this case.  

 

Unfortunately, some folks have been characterizing this group as
something that it is not.  It is not a policy-making group and our
report was not a pronouncement with some sort of imprimatur of the will
of ICANN community.  It should be viewed for what it is/was -- a group
of interested volunteers getting together to discuss potential solutions
to an issue based on the request of some of the leaders of various ICANN
supporting organizations/advisory committees.  We were successful in
offering up some good suggestions and proposals, but the work has never
been ratified by the policy-making body and should not be viewed as
bottom-up policy-making.  Therefore, if the ICANN Board disagrees with a
recommendation of this group with a clear rationale, I don't view it as
an affront to the bottom-up policy making model as others have been
articulating.  

 

My concern is that if folks oversell the nature of the group and try to
deem this kind of a discussion group as one with a policy-making
function, then the those with the actual policy-making responsibility
under ICANN's Bylaws might choose not to support groups like the CWG for
fear that the work will be viewed as policy-making without the due
process protections built into the Bylaws.  In order to foster future
discussion groups like the CWG, I suggest that we not suggest that they
are something that they are not.  

 

Thanks.

 

Jon

 

 

On Nov 28, 2010, at 5:31 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:





Thanks, Frank.

I do understand the point you are making. Problem is, it's incorrect.
The CWG was officially co-convened by the Chair of GAC along with the
chairs of ALAC and GNSO, and there was active representation of several
GAC members in it. Moreover, the charter of this group was approved by
the GAC chair and passed by the full GAC for its approval. Therefore
while you may be right to say that it is still unclear whether GAC as a
body would fully endorse the results of the report and its
recommendations, it is plainly not correct to say that "the GAC" did not
participate in it. It did.

 

Beyond that, on a more human level, I wonder whether you have thought
through the longer term implications of what you seem to be
saying/doing. Many people, not just myself, would take this kind of
distancing as further evidence of the dysfunctionality of current
arrangements for multistakeholder cooperation in ICANN. As long as
representatives of national governments hold themselves apart from the
process and (through strategic behavior) seek a special, privileged
influence over policy outcomes, then there will be major challenges to
the legitimacy of both the GAC and the policy outputs that come out of
the board on any issue. That lack of good faith process can only hold
back the internet.

 

Certainly, if governments want to make these decisions on their own, on
their own terms, they can do it. But then they'd have to be big boys and
girls and negotiate and pass a binding international treaty. And that
would require you to follow constitutional constraints, due process
requirements and ratification processes of the member states. If you're
not willing to do that, then perhaps you need to take these processes a
bit more seriously. You can't have it both ways.

 

Cheers,

--MM

 

(p.s., if you do want to go the treaty route, I look forward to
discussing the First Amendment implications with the U.S.
representatives.)

 

 

From: Frank March [mailto:Frank.March@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 3:51 PM
To: Milton L Mueller; Antony Van Couvering; soac-mapo
Cc: Heather.Dryden@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and ICANN re:
morality issues

 

Without wishing to seem pedantic, the GAC did not participate in the
Rec6WG. As I was at pains to point out on a number of occasions, some
GAC members including myself were part of the group but not able to
speak on behalf of the GAC.  I would like to think that the overall
direction of the report would have strong GAC support but this has not
been tested.

 

Because of the timing issues of getting the report ready in time for the
Council retreat, it was never proposed that the report be taken formally
to the GAC for discussion or endorsement.  My view is that it it is the
Board's response to the report and the outcomes therefrom that would
engage the GAC, not the report itself.

 

Given that the issues raised are still 'live' and the work is carrying
on it would certainly be possible to have a discussion in Cartagena.  I
have a feeling however that endorsement of the report from the GAC would
be difficult to achieve.  It might well be considered by some members
not to be an appropriate action for the GAC to take.

 

Best wishes, Frank

 

----

Frank March

Senior Specialist Advisor

Communications and IT Policy

Ministry of Economic Development

33 Bowen Street, PO Box 1473

WELLINGTON, New Zealand

Mobile: (+64) 021 494165

 

         

________________________________

        From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
        Sent: Monday, 29 November 2010 4:48 a.m.
        To: Antony Van Couvering; soac-mapo
        Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] Exchange of letters between GAC and
ICANN re: morality issues

        The disturbing thing about this exchange of letters is that both
sides seem to treat this working group - which GAC participated in - as
if it did not contribute "thoughtful proposals" to resolve the stated
concerns.